Translate

Thursday, January 14, 2016

MYSTERIOUS HUMAN SPECIES ANOMALY, 200,000 YEARS AGO

ONCE AGAIN, SCIENCE GETS TAUGHT A LESSON ON "HUMAN EVOLUTION".
THINGS FALL APART WHEN THIS HAPPENS, DENIAL REIGNS, AND FEW WANT TO BELIEVE THAT MAN WAS HERE FROM ABOUT DAY 6.

BUT WHAT REALLY CHAPS THE TEA ROOM IS HOW THIS "FIND" WAS ACCEPTED AT FACE VALUE WHILE THE 250,000 YEAR OLD SITE IN MEXICO WAS NOT.

THIS CERTAINLY PROVES THAT THE "EXPERTS" ARE ONLY WILLING TO QUICKLY ACCEPT "FINDS" THAT SUPPORRT THEIR "OUT OF AFRICA THEORY", AS IN THEORY, WHICH IS AN UNPROVEN LOAD OF CRAP UNTIL/UNLESS IT'S ABSOLUTELY PROVEN, BTW.

"Ancient stone tools from an archaeological site on Sulawesi have pushed back the date of the earliest human occupation of the Indonesian island to at least 118,000 years ago.
The discovery, published today in Nature, overturns the view that humans first entered the island between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago as Homo sapiens dispersed out of Africa on the way to Australia.
Instead the finding suggests an ancient human species inhabited the island well before Homo sapiens arrived.

Lead author Dr Gerrit van den Bergh, from the University of Wollongong, said it was likely this earlier inhabitant was related to the dwarf-sized hobbit (Homo floresiensis) — whose fossils were found more than a decade ago on the nearby island of Flores.
Dr van den Bergh, from the Center for Archaeological Science, who also worked on the Flores discovery, uncovered the open-air site at Talepu in Sulawesi's south-west in 2007. while surveying the area with Anwar Akib, from the local Cultural Heritage Department.
"This new road was cut in the area and I walked there with a local colleague [Mr Akib] and we stumbled upon this accumulation of stone artifacts in a gravel deposit," he said.

It was only the development of new dating techniques by colleague Dr Bo Li at Wollongong University in 2011 that allowed them to date the site.

The luminescence dating technique estimates the burial date of the artifacts by determining the last time grains of feldspar — a silicate mineral — surrounding the tools were exposed to sunlight.

This estimate was then supported by uranium dating of enamel on tooth fossils found at the site, which gave them a minimum age of 200,000 years old.
Dr van den Bergh said although the Nature paper put the date of earliest human occupation at 118,000 years ago, this was a "very conservative" estimate."

TWO TESTS AND "BINGO!", THEY'RE ACCEPTED, AS COMPARED TO FIVE TESTS PLUS THE ORIGINAL THREE BY A PROFESSIONAL TEAM FROM THE USGS FOR THE SITE IN MEXICO?

THE TEA ROOM CALLS A VERY LOUD "BS!" ON THE FAIRNESS OF THIS.

ONE CAN ASSUME WHY THE SITE IN MEXICO, THE DATA, THE PROOF, IS NOT ACCEPTED BY EVERYONE IN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL REALM...

IF MAN WAS IN THE "NEW WORLD" AT THE SAME TIME, OR EVEN BEFORE MAN APPEARED IN AFRICA, THEN THE GENOCIDE OF ANCIENT CULTURES HERE IN THE "NEW WORLD" JUST MIGHT BE SEEN FOR WHAT IT WAS.... THE MASS MURDER OF A VERY ADVANCED CULTURE, ONE THAT WAS DOING ADVANCED THINGS LIKE BRAIN GASTROINTESTINAL AND HEART SURGERY, CREATING MORE ELABORATE CITIES, TOOLS, ART THAN WERE FOUND IN ANCIENT EGYPT.

WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!

REMOVE THAT 'SAVAGES" DESIGNATION FROM "NEW WORLD" MAN AND YOU GET NAILED ON ETHICS, PROVEN THAT "WESTERN" MAN WAS FAR, FAR MORE ADVANCED THAN THE "EXPERTS" WANT TO ALLOW.

In 1981, the journal Quaternary Research published a paper by Steen-McIntyre, Fryxell and Malde that defended an anomalously distant age of human habitation at Hueyatlaco.

The paper reported the results of four sophisticated, independent tests: uranium-thorium dating, fission track dating, tephra hydration dating and the studying of mineral weathering to determine the date of the artifacts. These tests, among other data, validated a date of 250,000ypb for the Hueyatlaco artifacts. They wrote:

The evidence outlined here consistently indicates that the Hueyatlaco site is about 250,000 yr. old.

We who have worked on geological aspects of the Valsequillo area are painfully aware that so great an age poses an archeological dilemma [...] In our view, the results reported here widen the window of time in which serious investigation of the age of Man in the New World would be warranted.

HOW MANY SCIENTISTS/ARCHAEOLOGISTS, WITH CREDENTIALS BETTER THAN THOSE OF ALL WHO QUESTION THE "NEW WORLD" SITES AND WHO HAVE STOOD UP FOR THE DATA ON THE MEXICAN SITE, HAVE COMPLAINED:

"The scientific community processes information through a "knowledge filter" that screens out data that doesn't fit its preconceived ideas."

Some grooved metallic spheres, collected in South Africa from 2.8 billion year old strata were uncovered, with the interpretation that they must have been made by human beings, and therefore humans might have been in existence 2.8 billion years ago.

TOSSED OUT!
EVERYONE KNOWS MAN DID NOT WALK WITH DINOSAURS, YOU SEE...THAT WORD "EVERYONE" IS A LIE AS SEVERAL HAVE PROVEN JUST AS WELL, IF NOT BETTER THAN THESE LATEST "DISCOVERERS" OF ANCIENT MAN.

OTHERS AGREE THAT THE MEXICAN SITE IS AT LEAST 250,000 YEARS OLD, BUT CAN BE PERHAPS 800,000 YEARS OLD.

OTHERS, USING MORE SOPHISTICATED TESTS, HAVE REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT HUEYATLACO WAS INHABITED BY HUMANS 100,000 TO 200,000 YEARS EARLIER THAN ONCE IMAGINED.

Biostratigraphic researcher Sam VanLandingham has published two peer-reviewed analyses that confirm the earlier findings of ca. 250,000ybp for the tool-bearing strata at Heyatlaco. His 2004 analysis found that Hueyatlaco samples could be dated to the Sangamonian Interglacial period (ca. 80,000 to 220,000ybp) by the presence of multiple diatom species, one of which first appeared during this era and others that went extinct by the era's end.
VanLandingham's 2006 paper refined and re-confirmed his 2004 findings.